Christian Age of Earth?

[RickSp]

Quote by: phoenix_fire I mean it. I want a body. It shouldn't be that hard.

Don't you have one of your own?

Oh you mean you want Jesus' body?

If the Christians are right, then there is no body.

And if the sceptics are right and Jesus never existed in the first place, then there is no body.

And if the worms were busy there might not be a body anyway, and even if there was, identifying whose bones belonged to whom, would be impossible.

How long has necrophilia been a problem for you?

[phoenix_fire]

Oh ha ha. You're a great humourist. Look out Leno.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: LetThereBe i've heard some creationist scientists (yes they exist) try to answer those questions. First, most dinosaurs would have died during the flood, and the few that remained could't adapt to climate change. Second, as for the ice age some say that the ice age is still going on.... but most creationists say the majority of erosion said to be caused over millions of years by glaciers happened in the cataclysms of the flood. I don't see how exploration could possibly present a problem... but I can see how repopulation is. If its true that people lived into the 700's and were having children that late, population would occur much faster. Also, if sea level were only a little lower, the entire globe would be connected by the continental shelf. If water were being stored above the earth's atmosphere, or below its crust, then broke out and came to the earth, than that would raise the ocean level. Humans could have come to the western hemisphere pre-flood.

How could so many humans (Native Americans, Incans, Aztecs, Mayans) have populated the Americas and discovered in 1492, if they only had a couple thousand years to even get there (assuming of course they canoed there?)? Don't tell me they made it there in B.C.E. Don't lie to yourself like that. It would have been impossible to repopulate North and South America in a few thousand years during those times.

So if the flood happened in 2309 B.C. and also assuming the the Earth was made in 6000 B.C.E., does that mean the Earth only had the dinos for less than 4000 years? Why can we find land animal dinosaurs on both the Americas and in Europe!?!?!

What of all of meteriotes on the planet, with impacts that would have devastated life spanning continents??? Would that not have been recorded, or wouldn't the population have to start over on the continents affected? Repopulation then would take hundreds and hundreds of years to get back to where it was, assuming it was at the right spot in the first place.

And why then would God make the flood, if only dinosaurs ruled the world? Did the dinos sin? Did they speak the lord's name in vain? Was God not pleased with his own creation?

Where did all the water go? If God magically made it rain for 40 days, did he magically remove the water, or did he make a giant plug on the Earth? If the water attained the height of Mt. Everest (tallest mt. like bible says) then that means everything would be water, so it couldn't accumulate anywhere, no place to go.

What makes you think everyone lived to be 700 and not just a select few, or a select one.

The Great Flood is bullshit; example of blind faith. Or faith through a microscopic eye hole; that is, believing in almost nothing.

[RickSp]

As a Boy Scout, forty years or so ago, I got a kick out of digging up the fossils of ammonites at summer camp as well as volunteering at a local museum to help excate a mastodon skull. I learned about potassium argon dating and all sorts of interesting stuff. At the time I was active in my local church and nobody was claiming that the palentology that I was having such fun with was in any way contrary my faith.

The earth is, of course, not only 10,000 years old. That is just silly. Clovis man didn't appear on the North American continent until about 12,000 years ago and now we are learning that early man may have arrived on the continent 30,000 years ago. The best estimate for the emergence of early hominid primates is around 3 million years.

Luddite creationists can claim anything they want. Denying the evidence of the world around us just doesn't make sense.

[Starboy]

The other thing about the flood account that no one seems to find odd is that when the arc landed all life on the earth was dead. The arc would have to carry all the food that was needed to feed these animals until enough of an ecosystem could be recreated to support them. In the meantime they are getting older so you will have to breed them which of course means more food. There is no way that the arc would have been big enough for even a handful of large animals and the food needed to feed them. Not to mention that there were only now a handful of people on the earth with primitive technology. How in the world were they going to rebuild the ecology on a global scale? Also it is not obvious how they are going to rebuild a global ecology without insects. The account says nothing about insects. Where did they come from? And if they did bring them along what are all the parasites going to feed on? Isn't that going to place the animals and humans at great risk since they have the job of repopulating the entire planet all the while carrying an incredible load of parasites?

The whole thing is just nuts. It does give an insight into just how ignorant and gullible one must be to accept such a story as anything remotely having to do with reality.

What is even funnier is that these supernaturalist are trying to find natural explanations for what is purported to be a supernatural event. Apparently they lack enough faith in their own hocus pocus to just have god wave its magic wand and just make it all happen and forget about trying to twist the facts of reality into such a primitive view of the world.

Starboy

[LetThereBe]

Man, I leave for half a day, and I have six people to respond to! Well, lets start with this.
Star: I am not evoking bronze-age science. The idea of an old Earth is over all a newer belief. Most cultures believed in a young Earth (except for the greeks) until the last few hundred years. So lets stop the silly insulting.
Second: My example of dogs was an extreme example with human intervention, where man purposely bred animals for desirable traits. Thats exactly what natural selection is correct? The exact same thing happens in nature. African elephants would be favored with larger ears because of the warmer climate. Geographic isolation would speed up the process. It wouldn't take millions of years for such a change to develope. And, as I said, if Noah had every KIND of animal (not including insects and not including any sea animal) aboard the ark, with only minor genetic changes we could have every species.
I know that fossils aren't always actually bones. Of course they can be mineralized bones, an impression on stones, or many other things. The point is it STILL generally only occurs during a cataclysm. Suddenly we have the majority of our fossils (and I see you still did not answer my challenge about fossils that occur perpendicular to geologic layers...... you just keep ignoring it if you need to.) A major climate change is predicted after the flood, which could easily cause mass extinctions. Some claim thats how the dinosaurs died out anyways.
Next: seeds and water. As I mentioned, I'm not sure of the science of this, and since you seem to pride yourself an expert, I would like to know your credentials! Give me your research! I want to know how long it takes the majority of seeds to become completely water logged. And, I enjoy the hypocrisy of you atheists! If I cannot answer something I am mocked and told to just go back to God did it. Yet, when I ask how certain organelles could have possibly evolved, or how life came to be in the first place, I'm just given a "we don't have all the answers yet." I honestly seek the truth, and I think you should to. Just try for a second to investigate different possibilities without so much obvious bias.
Next: phoenix_fire, I'm sorry, but they are right on this one. Atheist or not, no one can be expected to find the body of Jesus, let alone prove it to be him. That's a silly argument.
Soccer: I still don't know what you mean by this: "How could so many humans (Native Americans, Incans, Aztecs, Mayans) have populated the Americas and discovered in 1492, if they only had a couple thousand years to even get there (assuming of course they canoed there?)? Don't tell me they made it there in B.C.E. Don't lie to yourself like that. It would have been impossible to repopulate North and South America in a few thousand years during those times."
I don't get what your saying. Quite a few people could be born in 4,000 years. If people start reproducing at about 20, you could have 200 generations. Thats quite a bit.Especially if you add in the possibility of extreme longevity. If the first couple generations lived 700 years, you'd get a pretty big head start. Migrations wouldn't take thousands of years either. Again, if water levels had been only SLIGHTLY lower, they would have been able to walk to the Americas over the Bering Straight.
Next: what do dinosaurs being in Europe and America have to do with anything? That would have been pre flood. Again, they would have had about 2,000 years to spread. Thats not an impossible thing. Think about how long 2000 years is. It's long enough for that.
Meteorites? What are you talking about... meteorites play parts in numerous ancient cultures. And how many impact craters have been found that would necessarily be a CONTINENT wide event?
If only the dinosaurs ruled the world? You obviously know MUCH less about creationism than I know of evolution, so learn your stuff a little bit before you trash it. So, here it comes. CREATIONISTS BELIEVE MAN AND DINOSAURS CO-EXISTED. Thats right. So, no, God did not just wipe out the dinosaurs. That conveniently happened when He wiped out man.
Next: its convenient that you mention Mount Everest. Just wanted to say sea shells have been found up on top. Interesting. Anyways, I can't claim to know where the water went for sure (which of course puts an incurable hole in my argument, but if a naturalistic explanation can't cover something thats ok...) However, I'll give some guesses. One: direct intervention of God (sorry, gotta include it). Two: Water returned to underground aquifers. It said the water come from the deeps, perhaps much of it then returned underground. Three: much might be stored in the polar ice caps. Again, if the flood caused an appreciable lowering in temperatures, that would hold a lot of water.
You say the flood is bullshit. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. I'm merely trying to show its a possiblity. Perhaps not even likely, but just a possiblity. Your understanding of creationism is poor at best, so don't call bullshit what you don't understand.

Lastly: to RickSp. I have never heard of pottasium argon dating. Interesting. I'm suprised no one else has brought up radioactive dating before. Such dating is the only real way we can try to determine how old the fossils are. Otherwise, we can't say how old those trilobytes are.... or whatever fossil you analyze at the moment. So that has to be the geologists point of reference.... it all hinges on that. And a few assumptions have to be made for it to work.

Again, please try to understand I am not by any means trying to "prove" creationism is true. I am merely trying to demonstrate its potential exists. If you choose to believe it, thats up to you.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Starboy The other thing about the flood account that no one seems to find odd is that when the arc landed all life on the earth was dead. The arc would have to carry all the food that was needed to feed these animals until enough of an ecosystem could be recreated to support them. In the meantime they are getting older so you will have to breed them which of course means more food. There is no way that the arc would have been big enough for even a handful of large animals and the food needed to feed them. Not to mention that there were only now a handful of people on the earth with primitive technology. How in the world were they going to rebuild the ecology on a global scale? Also it is not obvious how they are going to rebuild a global ecology without insects. The account says nothing about insects. Where did they come from? And if they did bring them along what are all the parasites going to feed on? Isn't that going to place the animals and humans at great risk since they have the job of repopulating the entire planet all the while carrying an incredible load of parasites? The whole thing is just nuts. It does give an insight into just how ignorant and gullible one must be to accept such a story as anything remotely having to do with reality. What is even funnier is that these supernaturalist are trying to find natural explanations for what is purported to be a supernatural event. Apparently they lack enough faith in their own hocus pocus to just have god wave its magic wand and just make it all happen and forget about trying to twist the facts of reality into such a primitive view of the world. Starboy

Well, this might suprise you greatly, but the reason that we try to find natural explanations is because we believe IT REALLY HAPPENED. I know, that seems to be difficult for you to grasp. Insects would have been able to survive better than anything else... they would require very little food and could perhaps live for a while on drift wood. Next, after the ark came to rest, they waited for months. Why? Probably so plants could again begin to grow.
Well, I'm glad you scoff at my beliefs. The feeling is mutual. I think the idea that everything developed naturally with no intelligent input is just silly. The idea that something as complex as humanity, or even the simplest DNA, could develope on its own is ridiculous.

[phoenix_fire]

Meh, it was humour to demonstrate a point. All sorts of "evidence" is brought forth to try to disprove different Bible accounts. I thought they could try their hand at this one. Of course I don't think they'll find anything. That body up and walked off a long time ago. Don't think they haven't tried.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: LetThereBe Soccer: I still don't know what you mean by this: "How could so many humans (Native Americans, Incans, Aztecs, Mayans) have populated the Americas and discovered in 1492, if they only had a couple thousand years to even get there (assuming of course they canoed there?)? Don't tell me they made it there in B.C.E. Don't lie to yourself like that. It would have been impossible to repopulate North and South America in a few thousand years during those times." I don't get what your saying. Quite a few people could be born in 4,000 years. If people start reproducing at about 20, you could have 200 generations. Thats quite a bit.Especially if you add in the possibility of extreme longevity. If the first couple generations lived 700 years, you'd get a pretty big head start. Migrations wouldn't take thousands of years either. Again, if water levels had been only SLIGHTLY lower, they would have been able to walk to the Americas over the Bering Straight. Next: what do dinosaurs being in Europe and America have to do with anything? That would have been pre flood. Again, they would have had about 2,000 years to spread. Thats not an impossible thing. Think about how long 2000 years is. It's long enough for that. Meteorites? What are you talking about... meteorites play parts in numerous ancient cultures. And how many impact craters have been found that would necessarily be a CONTINENT wide event? If only the dinosaurs ruled the world? You obviously know MUCH less about creationism than I know of evolution, so learn your stuff a little bit before you trash it. So, here it comes. CREATIONISTS BELIEVE MAN AND DINOSAURS CO-EXISTED. Thats right. So, no, God did not just wipe out the dinosaurs. That conveniently happened when He wiped out man. Next: its convenient that you mention Mount Everest. Just wanted to say sea shells have been found up on top. Interesting. Anyways, I can't claim to know where the water went for sure (which of course puts an incurable hole in my argument, but if a naturalistic explanation can't cover something thats ok...) However, I'll give some guesses. One: direct intervention of God (sorry, gotta include it). Two: Water returned to underground aquifers. It said the water come from the deeps, perhaps much of it then returned underground. Three: much might be stored in the polar ice caps. Again, if the flood caused an appreciable lowering in temperatures, that would hold a lot of water. You say the flood is bullshit. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. I'm merely trying to show its a possiblity. Perhaps not even likely, but just a possiblity. Your understanding of creationism is poor at best, so don't call bullshit what you don't understand.

Ok, if life sprang from the seeds of adam and eve, then human life originated with one family, in the same place. For one, that's weird that a brother and sister mated to produce loads offspring. That probably led to the first retards/growth deficiencies.

Assuming life came from one spot, let's also assume that this spot was indeed somewhere in the Middle East, where all of the Catholic action occurs. If humans started there, how did they make it across the entire Atlantic ocean during a period of 4000 years? All of which is before the use of widespread boating technologies (6000-2308 B.C.E.!)? How did the dinosaurs get there, too? Did they ride in the boats with the people?

The correct answer as to why humans existed in both places is that the ice path created by the last large Ice Age (no less than 12000 years ago!) enabled humans from asia to cross into north america. That is why very few older tribes existed in lower South America. Most populations did not have enough time to explore that far. You underestimate both the time it takes for human exploration 6000 years ago, as well as the time it takes for populations to grow.

Secondly, MAN AND DINOSAUR CANNOT COEXIST. That is utterly and certainly impossible. Dinosaurs roamed earth in massive populations, many of which were carnivores and were anywhere from 4 to 100 the size of man. Man would be extinguished and would be added to the list of the billions of already extinct creatures. Especially if man started out as the same time as dinos. That's not possible and you know it, you're in ecclestiastical denial.

Also, who said people live to 700? Where does it say "people" live to 700 and not just one person, even though we are just assuming this fact entirely anyways that it is even just one person.

Apparently, you know nothing of meteorites in the United States alone. Look at the Kansas, Arizona, and Nebraska meteorites that were almost powerful enough to have once thought to wipe out the entire dinosaurs. Meteorites have more effects on climate and life survival than you think. They occured of course, millions of years ago. Or else their impacts would still be around today.

Sea shells were found on mountains simply because of continental plates. The Indian Ocean plate has moved the subcontinent of India into Asia. From this crushing of land plates squeezing water together, tall, cold, mountains were formed--the Himalayas. Here, you can find seashells on the middle to upper region of the mountain. Not the very top!

And yes, no one knows where all the water went. I won't attempt to answer your suggestions as if you look them up you will see you are dead wrong.

[SteveA]

Quote by: Athena Myths, religious or otherwise, are essential to the civilizing process. Sometimes truth, reveals a myth as a false belief. This is clearly a threat to the civilization dependent on this mythology/religion for its order and civilizing of citizens. It means, the authorities who gave us these myths and who wrote our holy books, were only human and made errors. This puts everything they said to question, and whole fabric of civilization, be it Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or Hindu can unravel when the truth of their holy books and their religious authoriy is questioned.

I agree with you in this perspective. The Bible (and every other book I can think of) was written by people with human limits to their knowledge and understanding of things and acknowledgement of this by religions is deemed a threat (likely true to an extent, at least in the short term structure of a religion).

And, as you said, these cultural influences serve to coordinate people in their beliefs and this can reduce the conflict between them. Without some common views on things, there's conflict. Also, some of the principles or morals taught can be a positive influence. Though there's no magic and blind faith can be a problem also, and I don't think all religious teachings are beneficial. There are possibly some indirect benefits to living in a society where people believe in a supernatural being, but it seems like those same beliefs could be condensed into what physical interactions people have between themselves under this view, analyzing why they are beneficial, and then instead of motivating people to use this as a model by the questionable threats of an eternity burning in hell we can instead motivate them through the simple fact that it could be a more unanimously benefical manner in which to live (on a voluntary basis, of course ).

So I think religions should concentrate on extracting the real and tangible influences their beliefs have on peoples actions that benefit communitees and simple sell the ideas, not as something of mysterious value, but of tangible value that people can rationalize about.
Instead of saying - thou shalt not do X, Y, or Z because of fire and brimstone, they can instead say don't do X, Y or Z because if we can commit to following these rules between ourselves, we don't have to deal with problems A, B or C. This is something that most everyone can understand and leaves less opportunity for people to abuse a position of representing an authority that few can verify.

For example, what was possibly a beneficial moral to the story of Noah? I'd say it was that it's best to pack up what you need to survive and plan on being away for a while, if there's a big storm coming. Oh, and bring someone of the opposite sex, in the event the storm is bigger than expected! And this avoids the need for hell fire to get across the idea. Who knows, maybe the value of religion is in the controversy and the debates it creates? (Either way, it needs to remain a voluntary institution)

[RickSp]

Quote by: LetThereBe Lastly: to RickSp. I have never heard of pottasium argon dating. Interesting. I'm suprised no one else has brought up radioactive dating before. Such dating is the only real way we can try to determine how old the fossils are. Otherwise, we can't say how old those trilobytes are.... or whatever fossil you analyze at the moment. So that has to be the geologists point of reference.... it all hinges on that. And a few assumptions have to be made for it to work.

There are something like 40 different dating methods and techniques. The best known are radiocarbon (Carbon 14) for dating up to 50,000 years old and potassium-argon for geological dating up to several billion years. Rubidium-strontium, Argon-Argon laser spot fusion and uranium-lead are also common. Creationists usually dismiss any sort of radiometric dating, but so what? The science is there.

I still do not understand why the "young earth" creationists feel the need to be so numbingly literal regarding time and so free to twist and distort everything else.. What is a year? 365.25 days defined by the rising and setting of the sun? In Genesis the sun wasn't even created until the 4th day and Moses and Peter both note that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years." 2Peter3. So the 10,000 years that the "young earthers" claim could be millions or perhaps billions of years.

[Starboy]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Meh, it was humour to demonstrate a point. All sorts of "evidence" is brought forth to try to disprove different Bible accounts. I thought they could try their hand at this one. Of course I don't think they'll find anything. That body up and walked off a long time ago. Don't think they haven't tried.

That offer for you to go check for it in heaven still stands.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: LetThereBe Well, this might suprise you greatly, but the reason that we try to find natural explanations is because we believe IT REALLY HAPPENED. I know, that seems to be difficult for you to grasp. Insects would have been able to survive better than anything else... they would require very little food and could perhaps live for a while on drift wood. Next, after the ark came to rest, they waited for months. Why? Probably so plants could again begin to grow.

It is surprising because you believe in hocus pocus. You believe in magic. That you would even try to use natural explanations is just another indication of how screwed up your thinking is. What it shows is that deep down even you don't believe in the hocus pocus, that in order to validate your beliefs you must find justification in what you really believe in which is natural explanations. A person who sincerely and honestly believed in god and its hocus pocus would not think it important at all to have a natural explanation. They would be more interested in whether god had any angels or demons help out, and if there were any magic spells or secret handshakes used and what they were, and what supernatural substance god may have used to get everything right. You know, the standard ooga booga.

Well, I'm glad you scoff at my beliefs. The feeling is mutual. I think the idea that everything developed naturally with no intelligent input is just silly. The idea that something as complex as humanity, or even the simplest DNA, could develope on its own is ridiculous.

Don't feel bad. Even you scoff at your beliefs. If you didn't you would not be trying to use natural explanations to validate supernatural beliefs.

Starboy

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: RickSp There are something like 40 different dating methods and techniques. The best known are radiocarbon (Carbon 14) for dating up to 50,000 years old and potassium-argon for geological dating up to several billion years. Rubidium-strontium, Argon-Argon laser spot fusion and uranium-lead are also common. Creationists usually dismiss any sort of radiometric dating, but so what? The science is there. I still do not understand why the "young earth" creationists feel the need to be so numbingly literal regarding time and so free to twist and distort everything else.. What is a year? 365.25 days defined by the rising and setting of the sun? In Genesis the sun wasn't even created until the 4th day and Moses and Peter both note that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years." 2Peter3. So the 10,000 years that the "young earthers" claim could be millions or perhaps billions of years.

I'm glad someone here actually seems to be making an argument based on science, and not just blind bias and insults. Unfortunately I can't say I know anything about those methods of dating aside from Carbon 14 dating. However, I have heard there are some problems with that.

"Since sunlight causes the formation of C-14 in the atmosphere, and normal radioactive decay takes it out, there must be a point where the formation rate and the decay rate equalizes. This is called the point of equilibrium. Let me illustrate: If you were trying to fill a barrel with water but there were holes drilled up the side of the barrel, as you filled the barrel it would begin leaking out the holes. At some point you would be putting it in and it would be leaking out at the same rate. You will not be able to fill the barrel past this point of equilibrium. In the same way the C-14 is being formed and decaying simultaneously. A freshly created earth would require about 30,000 years for the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere to reach this point of equilibrium because it would leak out as it is being filled. Tests indicate that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. There is more C-14 in the atmosphere now than there was 40 years ago. This would prove the earth is not yet 30,000 years old! This also means that plants and animals that lived in the past had less C-14 in them than do plants and animals today. Just this one fact totally upsets data obtained by C-14 dating. They do not know that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is constant. Present testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950's. This may be tied in to the declining strength of the magnetic field."

Is that just a complete lie? I readily admit that I am disapointed that the article did not include any more information about the specific tests that indicate equilibrium has not been reached.

Also, I think whether the Earth is old or young is a key issue for Christians. If Genesis is an area of scripture that can not be taken literally, than what can? Even if you take the literal 1000 years to a day, then God created the heavens and the Earth in 6,000 years. If everything is a metaphor, what can be trusted? Perhaps the gospel is nothing more than a metaphor... the entire Christian religion falls apart when you can't trust scripture.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Starboy It is surprising because you believe in hocus pocus. You believe in magic. That you would even try to use natural explanations is just another indication of how screwed up your thinking is. What it shows is that deep down even you don't believe in the hocus pocus, that in order to validate your beliefs you must find justification in what you really believe in which is natural explanations. A person who sincerely and honestly believed in god and its hocus pocus would not think it important at all to have a natural explanation. They would be more interested in whether god had any angels or demons help out, and if there were any magic spells or secret handshakes used and what they were, and what supernatural substance god may have used to get everything right. You know, the standard ooga booga. Starboy

Ha, I still wait for one without an insult. And I'm still waiting for an answer for how the fossils could be perpendicular to geological layers. But I guess instead of calling on hocus pocus, you just ignore issues you can't answer.
I believe God uses supernatural methods, but I also believe sometimes he doesn't. Clearly if evidence for a supernaturalistic explanation can be found than that stregthens my argument with believers in the supernatural AND skeptics. For example, lets say we find an ark of the dimensions specified in the Bible up in the mountains of Ararat. I would definitely prefer that to God just having made the boat up and vanish, because it is strong evidence that the event really occured. Isn't it pretty obvious thats why I look for natural explanations? Its to give creationism validity to those who might not otherwise give it a chance.

[Starboy]

Quote by: LetThereBe I'm glad someone here actually seems to be making an argument based on science, and not just blind bias and insults. Unfortunately I can't say I know anything about those methods of dating aside from Carbon 14 dating. However, I have heard there are some problems with that.

That is very funny. You are trying to argue a Bronze Age religious myth as if it had anything to do with a scientific explanation. And to top it all off you actually do not know all that much about science and I am willing to bet you do not know all that much about your own supernatural mumbo jumbo or its history. And yet you seem to think that this profoundly ignorant and inconsistent stance you are taking is an argument of any kind.

StarboyAlso, I think whether the Earth is old or young is a key issue for Christians. If Genesis is an area of scripture that can not be taken literally, than what can? Even if you take the literal 1000 years to a day, then God created the heavens and the Earth in 6,000 years. If everything is a metaphor, what can be trusted? Perhaps the gospel is nothing more than a metaphor... the entire Christian religion falls apart when you can't trust scripture.

Christians have a far bigger issue to deal with. Theirs is an historic tradition with many elements stolen from other religious traditions that they justify based on a single historic figure, Jesus. If there are major questions about that figure or the purported account of that person and the events surrounding his life and their interpretation then the rest of it just doesn't matter. They will need to start looking for another supernatural religion. The assertions about Jesus and his significance and the supernatural role that he plays are only supported in that single document. If these supernaturalists knew the history of how that account came to be and the suppression of the other accounts that gave other insights into the historic Jesus and the "message" of Jesus they would not consider the bible to be a reliable document at all.

Starboy

[Athena]

Quote by: phoenix_fire The dinosaur bones were simply buried on earth to make people wonder why they are there. The planet builders put them there. The earth is a supercomputer commisioned by the mice. As for SteveA, the earth DOES push back when you jump. For every action...sound familiar? Addressing the question of literary devices, bear in mind that: 1.) the Bible as we have it is a translation (and in some cases, a translation of a translation). In Greek and Hebrew (the dominant languages of the original Scriptures), there are many unique words that would be covered with just one word in the English language (which may or may not entirely convey the meaning). The most popular example is the word "love". It is used often in the Bible, but there are four different words used in the original manuscript which mean different things: phileo, eros, agape, and storge. Sanskrit has approximately 96 by the way. The point is, if you want to get all smart about "corners" and such, you're barking up the wrong tree. 2.) Most people who believe that the Bible is inspired still recognize that it was written by human hands. The implication first is that parts of it will tend to use literary devices. Another implication is that things beyond human comprehension are trying to be explained, and thus will be explained from a human standpoint. In classical times, opponents of the Bible exulted when it was put forth that the earth orbited a stationary sun because they said by proving that the sun was not made to stand still at Jericho, the whole authority of the Bible was brought down. The fact is, however, the events were recorded from the perspective of the people there. It seemed to them that the sun usually moved across the sky and that it had stopped. It does not make them wrong. It simply means it was described differently than we would describe it. Simply put, I don't think it's fair to nitpick at the concept of God, trying to take Him down on technicalities. It really is a way of avoiding confronting the subject at hand: either you believe in God or you do not. No one who believes in God is going to be disabused of that belief based on argument, no matter how much "cognitive dissonance" they experience (which trust me, is really a non-issue). No one who refuses to believe in God is going to be convinced no matter how much scientific evidence they are given. For the evangelist to appeal on the grounds of science is futility: he or she is playing by someone else's rules. If you believe in God, you believe that there is proof, but I, as a believer, am equally convinced that once someone has decided one way or the other, trying to argue them into submission will be of little avail.

Wait a minute. I hold a God is possible, but it is not the God of the bible. The God of Abrabam is not a universal God. It is strictly the Hebrew understanding of God, who was their God and no one else's God. They preserved this belief in God, but isolating themselves from others, and making it almost impossible for anyone who was not a Jew to be accepted as Jew. Virginity became intensely important, because if there was any question of who was the father of a child, the child was disinherited. When everything people needed depended on owning the land that provided for their needs, being disinherited was a death sentence. Jews wanted to be sure they were not polluted by non Jews. Their God is not everyone's God.

[Athena]

Next: seeds and water. As I mentioned, I'm not sure of the science of this, and since you seem to pride yourself an expert, I would like to know your credentials! Give me your research! I want to know how long it takes the majority of seeds to become completely water logged.

What is the point of this statement? I google waterlog seeds and got more information than I want to deal with. The first site was explaining how to sprout seeds. I have done this and it isn't so easy. We can all determine how long it takes to waterlog a seed, by putting the seed in water and waiting for it to die.

How about this, why are there plants in one area of the world, that are not everywhere in the world? Did Noah gather seeds from everywhere in the world, and then travel around the whole world again reseeding it? Please, interpreting the bible literally, refusing science in favor of believing something that goes against science, is one of the worst things Christians do. This has done so much harm!

Take illness for example. While Muslims /Arabs where using Aristotle and Hippocrates
to understand disease and medicine, Christians were running with the idea that illness was caused by the fall of Adam and Eve and sin, and even killing people as witches if they were practicing a more rational method of treating disease. Thank God we accepted the Muslim/Arab way of looking at disease and medicine. What a mess we would be in today, if Christians with their refusal to accept to science had more power than they do.
Why don't these people begin to understand why there is so much opposition to them?
How can we have peace, when people insist on being unreasonable? Refusing science, destroys their whole religious argument, because it makes them dangerous people.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

LetThereBe, are you going to respond to me post against your refutation?

[Athena]

Quote by: RickSp An article from yesterday's NY Times that I find equal parts amusing and sad. It follows two different rafting trips in the Grand Canyon - one lead by a geologist explaining the development of the canyon and one lead by a church group with a creationist explaining how the canyon was formed during the flood 4,500 years ago. Seeing Creation and Evolution in Grand Canyon

Earth's oldest living inhabitant "Methuselah" at 4,767 years, has lived more than a millennium longer than any other tree.

The age of Methuselah is determined by taking a core sample of the tree and counting the rings. Much of what we are learning about the earth is the result of core samples of the earth itself.

I declare, we determine truth with science and this has done more for humanity than any holy book.